Tuesday, January 09, 2007

The latest indication of near universal acceptance of the actual innocence of the falsely persecuted victims of Defendant Nifong’s Hoax comes from Washington, D.C., Superior Court Judge John H. Bayly Jr. Benjamin Niolet of the News & Observer reports that Collin Finnerty’s misdemeanor simple assault conviction was set aside last month by Judge Bayly, who also ended Finnerty‘s probation early.

“A Washington, D.C., judge said last month that he would wipe the simple-assault case against Collin Finnerty off his record, six days after Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong dropped the rape charge against the former Duke lacrosse player.

“Finnerty was convicted in July of misdemeanor simple assault stemming from a November 2005 incident outside a Georgetown bar. He was accused of threatening and taunting a Washington man after a night of drinking.

“Finnerty's attorney moved to set aside and vacate the verdict under a district law that allows young offenders to have convictions erased. The judge said in court he would grant that motion, Gurowitz said.” Niolet, N&O

In comments to Niolet and a letter to the News and Observer, Finnerty’s attorney, Steven McCool, notes that the decision to end Finnerty’s probation and clear his record speaks well of the character of this victim of Nifong's Hoax. It also contradicts the continued attempts by many Hoax enablers and apologists to mis-characterize the Georgetown incident as a hate crime, in order to falsely impugn Mr. Finnerty and his teammates.

"Judges don't do this as a matter of course. They take a look at the person before them, and they make the appropriate judgment," said Finnerty's attorney, Steven McCool. Niolet, N&O

“As Collin Finnerty's attorney in Washington, D.C., I am disappointed, but not surprised, that a Jan. 5 People's Forum letter-writer appears to have learned nothing from the Duke lacrosse scandal. He, like many others, ignores the procedural history, the evidence and the court's findings in Finnerty's Washington matter.

“Initially, prosecutors decided to dismiss the misdemeanor charge against Finnerty in exchange for community service. The gross injustice in Durham prompted the prosecutors to withdraw from their agreement. The evidence at trial made clear that Finnerty did not strike the accuser. The proof also contradicted assertions made by others -- that this was some sort of hate crime. Neither the police nor the prosecutors ever made this assertion. In fact, the government acknowledged this "was an argument between two young guys who were sizing each other up." Notwithstanding, the court found Finnerty guilty of throwing "fake punches."

“Ironically, the court found it unnecessary to require that he perform community service as part of his probationary sentence. More importantly, last week the judge who presided over the case set aside his conviction, after monitoring Finnerty for several months and learning more about his fine character.” McCool, N&O

The letter that McCool refers to was written by Raleigh resident John Wright, who falsely describes the incident as a "physical assault" in order to deride Duke’s decision to invite Finnerty back to school.

"I would like to know why Duke University administrators feel that it is acceptable to readmit Collin Finnerty (news story, Jan. 4). Although the Durham sexual assault case against him appears to be very shaky at best, isn't it clear that he physically assaulted a man in Washington last year?

“This is a question that administrators at Duke should be pressed to answer and the media should be asking it.

“If I were a student at Duke, I would not feel comfortable about the decision to readmit Collin Finnerty.” Wright,N&O

Mr. Wright’s mischaracterization is not, however, the only, nor the most deceptive, attempt to distort the incident. Group of 88 Professor Houston Baker, Duke University Professor Thomas Crowley, Snooze Room Editor Bob Ashley, and N&O columnist Barry Saunders have each promoted the lie that the simple assault was a hate crime. The false assertions put forth by Baker, Crowley, Ashley, and Saunders came well after it was widely reported that the uninformed allegations of gay bashing were specifically refuted by federal prosecutors, police, and Jeffrey Bloxsom, the other party involved in the altercation.

"No mention was made of [Collin Finnerty’s] recent assault conviction, with strong homophobic overtones, against a gay man on a Washington, D.C. street." - Bob Ashley

"The Duke lacrosse players were no angels – they had a previously established history of rowdiness tarnished with racial comments, and one of the accused had been previously arrested for anti-gay comments while drunk." - Professor Thomas Crowley

“LIES! You are just a provacateur [sic] on a happy New Years Eve trying to get credit for a scummy bunch of white males! You know you are in search of sympathy [sic] for young white guys who beat up a gay man in Georgetown, get drunk in Durham, and lived like "a bunch of farm animals" near campus.

"I really hope whoever sent this stupid farce of an email rots in .... unhappy [sic] new year to you ... and forgive me if your really are, quite sadly, mother of a "farm animal." Professor Houston Baker

The timing of Judge Bayly’s ruling, delivered within a week of Defendant Nifong’s decision to drop the rape charges after Dr. Meehan's sworn testimony about their unethical agreement to purposely withhold exculpatory evidence from the defense, is noteworthy. The judge's decision coincides with the State Bar filing ethics charges against Defendant Nifong, and the North Carolina Conference of District Attorneys calling for Nifong to recuse himself from the Hoax. The coincidence of the timing appears to indicate that the legal community has finally wised to the danger Nifong represents to the entire criminal justice system.

Also adding significance to the timing, it would appear that the clearing of Finnerty’s record starkly reveals the frivolous nature of the civil rights complaint filed by Nifong’s Citizen Committee Co-Chairs, Victoria Peterson and Kim Brummell, the day after Judge Bayly granted the motion to set aside the conviction. In their letter to the Department of Justice, the “Citizens for Mike Nifong” political action committee founders falsely described the incident as a hate crime.

“It also calls for hate crime charges to be lodged against Finnerty for his recent conviction in Washington, D.C., on charges stemming from a confrontation with a gay man.”

“Activist Victoria Peterson issued a press release announcing the complaint and said she faxed and mailed copies to the Justice Department on Friday.” Herald-Sun

There certainly appears to be much validation for Collin Finnerty, as well as further aspersions for Nifong and his enablers, in the decisions by Judge Bayly. It is equally apparent, (if the nasty entry in the Urban Dictionary is any clue), that the damage done to young Mr. Finnerty’s reputation by the false accusations, Defendant Nifong’s hijacking of the Hoax, and the smear tactics employed by Nifong’s campaign supporters, media enablers, and public apologists continue.

81 comments:

Anonymous
said...

The actions by Peterson and Brummell make this EXTREMELY clear tha the feds need to step in here. The continuation of this case has encouraged and allowed these boys to be further damaged by the likes of these two ugly Durham despots.

Not only are these boys' reputations damaged, but given the frenzy that will be whipped by Peterson, Brummell, they may have to fear for their lives if they were to return to the Duke campus.

Could there be any more clear evidence that the boys' civil rights and constitutional rights have been totally denied?

Of course now that the Dems control D.C., we won't see the US AG anytime soon.

"In comments to Niolet and a letter to the News and Observer, Finnerty’s attorney, Steven McCool, notes that the decision to end Finnerty’s probation and clear his record speaks well of the character of this victim of Nifong's Hoax. It also contradicts the continued attempts by many Hoax enablers and apologists to mischaracterize the Georgetown incident as a hate crime, in order to falsely impugn Mr. Finnerty and his teammates.

"'Judges don't do this as a matter of course. They take a look at the person before them, and they make the appropriate judgment,' said Finnerty's attorney, Steven McCool. Niolet, N&O"

Judge Bayly did NOT make the appropriate judgment when he decided the so-called DC assault case at a time when Collin Finnerty was erroneously but wrongly believed to be a gay-bashing rapist/sexual offender/kidnapper.

To his credit, Judge Bayly all but apologized by setting aside Collin's unmerited conviction and ending his probation early.

But for the Duke hoax, there would not have been a trial in the DC assault case,

But for the undeserved notoriety of the case that is a hoax and the manipulated indictments on bogus charges, Judge Bayly would have gotten it right the first time and exonerated innocent Collin, a young man who was in the wrong place at the room time a couple of time and, in D.C.,was suckered by a wily older man he never punched and silenced at his trial as a defense strategy generally considered necessary because the bogus first-degree felony charges were pending in Durham and the prosecutor there is a rogue prosecutor who would do just about anything to win election.

The judge did the right thing for Collin. He is the greatest kid and the Lacrosse team is really hoping that he will rejoin them as soon as this legal 'hoax' is over.Too bad he was not the judge here in Durham...Duke Lacrosse Mom AND SO VERY PROUD OF IT!!!!

Duke Lax Mom - you should be proud!!! I hope Collin rejoins the team too. Never thought I'd be cheering for Duke but I'd definitely be rooting for them all the way!! Would love to see them play someday!!

Just a quick thought on the Urban Dictionary. Some things without legs fade fast. Other names have a purient permanence. Like "Santorum" - if you don't know what it is, you might be strongly advised not to look it up.In the Duke Rape case, "Nifonging" appears to be on it's way to being well-ensconced as a permanent word to describe a particular action and I believe "Nifongerer" will soon be added to the Urban Dictionary to refer to the person doing the Nifonging.

3 - He knew that the police had been called to the house at least once in the past. (tight lax group, "how good was last nights party? the cops came"). Maybe I don't want to be there if the cops get called again?

He did not deserve a "DA" filing false charges, but he needs to spend some time thinking about life choices. Kids do stupid things. Hopefully your kids won't make the same bad choices.

It's tough to totally avoid alcohol on a college campus. It's around enough that it would be difficult to socialize if you can't be anywhere in it's proximity. Anyway, he was there but he doesn't seem to have hung around very long.

I'd love to learn more about the civil rights complaint files by Nifong’s Citizen Committee Co-Chairs, Victoria Peterson and Kim Brummell, the day after Judge Bayly granted the motion to set aside the conviction. I might have been sleeping but this is the first that I've heard of that. That seems extremely suspect and egregious, what's up with that?

Assault is putting someone in reasonable fear that you are about to hit them. Pointing a gun and saying "I am going to shoot you" would be an assault. Faking a punch at someone is also under some circumstances. For it to be assault, there has to be some overt act though. If you just sit behind a table, make no move toward someone and say "I am going to hit you" that wouldn't be assault.

Because it is relatively harmless, except that it causes fear, simple assault (like this) usually doesn't get a heavy sentence. Hence the original agreed community service and later probation sentence.

To 5:01...agreed to a certain extent...the info I read is that it was clearly a 'fake' punch and that no one was really threatened by it....prior to this latest news, people familiar with the case were baffled that he was even in court for the original issue.

On the other hand he probably has done his best to steer clear of trouble and I can't imagine he would have guessed that his attending the party would result in this much of a mess...it's not like it was the only party of this type going on at Duke.

If parties with strippers are construed to be serious violation of the law then there would be lots of bachelors who would be busted.

gs- do you have kids? If you do and you never receive some type of call like the one Collin's parents got from DC, consider yourself blessed! I grew up with 3 brothers and my parents got a few "calls", and they all turned out to be very productive adults. I have two teenage boys and have already gotten a "call", nothing too serious,but a stupid teenage kid being in the wrong place at the wrong time. I HOPE he has learned his lesson, but life is long and teenage boys can be very dumb!! ;)

I have the fortune to be around a lot of teenagers and a very small number of them try to stay away from alcohol and sex. Unfortunately, this is very difficult in their culture today. One of the consequences of this Duke case is the awareness parents now have of what really does go on at high schools and colleges through out this country. Hiring strippers to perform sex acts is not uncommon. Actually, girls performing sex acts for free is more common. Underage drinking is rampant. Please take a moment and watch MTV. If you are a decent person you will likely be shocked. Yet this is the environment good kids are faced with daily. And we act horrified that they are drinking alcohol before they are 21 years of age....21 years of age! They can be sent to fight in a war at 18 but God forbid they drink alcohol before their 21st birthday! If this law were in any way effective it would mean that only seniors (and perhaps some juniors)would drink alcohol in college. We know this is clearly not the case. And how many of us can say we never drank alcohol before our 21st birthday. I certainly can't. If I remember my history classes prohibition didn't work and its not working now.

I am sure Reade and Collin felt they had to go to that party. This was their team and these were their captains. It is unfortunate the captains put these young men in that situation. But again as has been repeated numerous times on these sites, these actions are quite common today and while we may deplore hiring strippers to perform sex acts on each other, these actions are not racist and most importantly they are not the equivalent of RAPE.

I was speaking to a mother of a teenager about this case. I happen to know her child well. This woman used the line we are all to familiar with..."those boys were not angels" It was then clear to me she did not know how her own child spends her free time.

7:35 Thank you! The point I was trying to make, was not that citing other peoples stupid behavior makes stupid behavior right, but that people who do not have children, do not realize that there is no thing as a "perfect child" ( or a perfect person ), kids will make mistakes. This is how we learn, from our mistakes. Are you saying that you have NEVER done anything stupid or wrong??!! I think I can safely say, we ALL have, some of us may have been caught, and some of us didn't get caught.So, getting all "high and mighty" and tossing around phrases like "they were no angels" is meaningless. Because afterall, who among us IS an angel???

10:42,Forgive me if I'm mistaken but you convey the belief that Collin somehow deserves what he has gotten. You have the "play with fire you will get burned" mantra. Collin had been falsley accused of a brutal, violent gang rape. He has had the national media, a prosecutor and people through out this nation villify him publicly on a national level over and over again. And yet all he has ever done is act as hundreds of thousands of other 18 year old college students. I do not for one minute believe that he deserves this. What has happened to him is a crime.

If Crystal had been telling the truth and was a prostitute who was violently raped and assaulted. I would also never believe she deserved it.

Give me a break with this sanctimonious pose about underage drinking. Direct me to a college campus besides Brigham Young where it doesn't go on.

People who have this holier than thou attitude usually have the most to hide. I'd like to dig around in your backgrounds. Skeletons in the closet? You've probably got a whole cemetery in there. Open the front door of your house and 10 bones fly out.

Justice58.... no it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out these "HOLLIGANS"....now, it might take a 4th grade education to spell a word that has been written on this blog... hmmm..let's say about 500 times! Maybe you should spend a little less time hating and a little more time learning!

Justice58 has given us a good idea why the trial (if there is one) has to be transferred out of racist, anti-white, vicious Durham. I am amazed that any parent thinks a student at Duke is safe in that community. Nifong has stoked the fires under a witches cauldron; now Durham will have to live in it.

why not? you all do it daily to nifong and the accuser and the moderator lets you because you convey the opinion that the moderator approves of. My posts were deleted and I did not use foul language and quoted scripture even and it was removed because I told the truth and it hit too close to home.

Underage drinking and the presence of strippers have been used as reasons why he should have not gone to the party. The conditions of his deferred prosecution did not bar him from either going to a strip club or hiring a stripper both of which are perfectly legal actions. Perhaps you view hiring a stripper (or being one) as immoral but it is not illegal (at least in Durham and NC in general).

20+ other Duke parties had strippers in the same academic year (athletic parties...). This is no secret and only the lax team was targeted (meaning strippers are not banned from off campus parties on threat of suspension for other sports).

As for the underage drinking he could assert that he did not drink or was there for a bit, saw the drinking, and left. Note: this is the 'pathetic party' view and one I would have reached fairly quickly. You may expect alcohol to be consumed by students at any party (Frat, sports, even some of the religious ones in my experience) so avoiding it means avoiding all large social events. Going also was being part of the team and it appears he went and left - making the appearance.

It appears that the 2 or so minutes of stripping was also a reason for people to leave as was the general fact that the amount paid was what the organizers had agreed to pay for two white strippers. Not black. They PAID regardless. Stripping is a service occupation and the men paid up even if the product was not as advertised (not what was requested, not the amount of time agreed to).

They paid to avoid police trouble (and general knowledge at Duke I assume).

These parties would violate the code at my university (also very selective) but it is a remnant from the past (ie religious influences on the school). I do not and would not go to such parties but that is my choice and is not because I view the party as immoral but because I dislike the large gatherings with pointless drinking in general. I also do not need to pay a stripper $400 for 2 minutes and a headache dealing with them - I have a wonderful girlfriend (as did many of the Duke players but whatever).

I am older than the average student - actually about 4 years 'behind' - with part of the reason due to a transfer to my present school (also in NC and not a state school...one 'below' Carolina) and part due to other circumstances that prevented entry immediately after high school.

The Duke case matters to me because I care about civil liberties, the image of the state I live in, the legal environment that I have to accept in this state (bar and medical boards lack 'teeth' and their mandates are heavily influenced by the professions lobbies), and general sympathy for the accused. I am not 'like' them but I can relate to being in the 'wrong place at the wrong time' on a personal level.

I posted the previous message and wanted to address the Brigham Young University issue, ie, lack of underage drinking. This is not the case - I know two individuals who went there (graduated from BYU in 06, were in my senior class). One did not drink, smoke, consume coffee, tea, or caffeinated sodas (machines lack anything with caffeine at BYU). She happened to be my high school girlfriend and someone I would associate with on a moral level (I would have gone to BYU as a non-mormon but events kept me from doing so).

The second student (male) was mormon and did drink (as well as drugs - not much though). I do know that he continued in college as I kept up with him and my now ex-girlfriend. He did it discreetly and generally off campus. BYU has a n office to deal with such issues, ie, they rely on a network of snitches to file disciplinary charges against students. Regardless this individual had an informal action against him for drinking but graduated (they want missionaries) and will be in the air force when he returns from his mission (rotc).

Not all students at such universities are the angels you would expect them to be and it is worth noting that is the case.

"My posts were deleted and I did not use foul language and quoted scripture even and it was removed because I told the truth and it hit too close to home."

Attacking posters on a personal level, engaging in off topic or confrontational posts which lead to pointless exchanges, etc will also lead to the moderator deleting comments. There is a difference between attacking Nifong for documented actions and posters that you do not know and whose opinions are as valid (if not more so) than your own. We are talking about the conviction being set aside not whether stripping is immoral (sinful whatever) and the like. This is off topic but is necessary now that stripping is viewed as bad as underage drinking (implying that the former is also illegal when it is not).

These are parties that people attend because of their social groups. Not going to any because of the possibility of underage drinking, stripping (20+ other Duke parties had strippers as well..), and the like would mean that he basically was not part of the team. Now I don't think that should be the case and do not agree with such parties but it is reality and did not violate his agreement with the prosecution. Nifong's charges DID violate the agreement and the presumption that the 'evidence' supported the charges led to the trial. His actual behavior did not - the stripper's and Nifong's did.

Justice - I know that it is frustrating to have your posts deleted. In fairness though, Joan has never deleted a single post of yours, or anyone else for that matter. She does not moderate the blog, I do. As such, your attacks on her are not only mean-spirited but also unfounded. You are welcome to continue to post here if you can do so without hate, without vulgarity, and without making false accusations. - Philip

If you want to talk about false accusations, lets be real. You continue to let posts stand that call the victim a prostitute. There is no record of prostition of the victim.That Philip,is FALSE, so why aren't those posts deleted.The victim may be very sexually active but there is no charge or proof of prostitution. Contrary to what you believe about her, does NOT make it absolute truth.

Lets talk about vulgarity. Other posters have written words that are vulgar and you let them stand. That is being bias toward duke supporters and you know it or you just don't care.

Some posters have even attacked my reputation, calling me scandalous names just because I support the victim. But you let that post stay. You don't know me or my life.

How can you possibly accuse me of false accusations and vulgarity and NOT others? You, Philip are condoning racial attacks on the victim and blacks for that matter. Ignoring others that do the same and deleting my post is nothing short of racial hatred of a race that is different from yours.

Letting other posters spew poisonous hatred and made-up lies about the victim is wrong.

In fairness, I have deleted more posts aimed at you than I have deleted posts of yours aimed elsewhere. While I may not catch them all, I have diligently attempted to and have also deleted many posts that have attempted to mock you by impersonating your nic.

I have specifically addressed your concerns, not to single you out and not to accuse you, but rather because you have raised them. It does not mean that I approve of or would willingly allow others to do the same. Again, I have deleted far more posts that have been unkind to you, to other supporters of the accuser, and to the accuser than I have of yours.

With that said, I'm certain that among the 33,000 comments there are posts around that should be poofed. You are welcome to notify me by email ( pwood@liestoppers.com )if a comment offends you. Please keep in mind that I can't physically monitor the blog 24/7.

It is naive to suggest that a woman employed by an escort agency to perform one on one "dates" does not engage in prostitution. On the blog it is an issue I have chosen not to discuss yet it streches reasonability to question the conclusion that some have chosen to express in the comments.

Accusing me of racial hatred is unfair and not appreciated. I do not condone racial attacks on anyone or any race. I have made no such attacks in my posts on the blog nor has Joan for that matter. I suspect my race is not entirely what you expect, btw. I don't understand why you feel that if I delete your post it is because my race is not the same as yours. By that same logic, it would mean that when I delete a white posters comment that it is because their race is other than mine. To extend that logic to its furthest extreme, I would be able only to moderate Hispanic poster's comments.

In any event, let me say again that you are welcome here. I know that the case is important to you and at times (for all of us, really) our emotions can get the better of us. I do ask, however, that you do make an effort to play nice.

Investigating the DPD

Potbangers Not Waiting

Hoax Blogs, News, Talk

Page Two by LieStoppers

LS Forum, Home of the Blog Hooligans

Bloggers" Choice Awards

Contact Us

LieStoppers Blog Archive

Search LieStoppers Main Blog and Forum

Liestoppers Blog Hooligan Gear

Use The Drop Down Menu Below To Visit The Online LS Shop

Support This Site

Thank you for being a part of the LS Community and for helping us to continue to grow this Blog, the LS Forum, and the LS message. All proceeds will be used to maintain and upgrade the sites, to increase exposure, expand resources, and to purchase new crayons for Baldo.
Please note: Contributions and purchases are not tax deductible.

The Johnsville News

What does Nifong and the NBPP have in common?

John In Carolina

"He imagines himself confronted by giants."

"A well-connected and well-financed (but not, I would suggest, well-intentioned) group of individuals—most of whom are neither in nor from North Carolina—have taken it upon themselves to ensure that this case never reaches trial. (And if this seems like paranoid delusion to you, perhaps you should check out websites such as former Duke Law School graduate and current Maryland attorney Jason Trumpbour’s www.friendsofdukeuniversity.blogspot.com/, which has not only called for me to be investigated, removed from this case, and disbarred, but has also provided instructions on how to request such actions and to whom those requests should be sent."